The story is compelling. However, the terminology used seems inaccurate. He probably graduated from some level of primary and secondary education. What I heard was that he chose not to earn a college or university education. So to say you are uneducated is a misnomer. He is not college educated.
There's something called "the school of Life" that provides some indelible lessons that take us through situations that are politely omitted from the text book and from the classroom discussion. How sad it is when people feel they are superior because they've learned how to parrot the theory without an appreciation of the real world application of the knowledge and the ability to adapt that knowledge to be workable for the situation at hand.
Nope. I'm not buying the self characterization of an "idiot savant" or "uneducated." Furthermore, there is evidence a high amount of being educated because of the willingness to listen and consider, to evaluate contradictory information without being judgmental and develop a counter argument, if one is justified. Most importantly, there is that fundamental willingness to listen. There is also the humility that is demonstrated most of the time coupled with being comfortable enough to admit to a misstep or misinterpretation. Those are traits of an educated person (educated because they have good EQ) of high intelligence. The colleague will always be able to escape the characterization of being "uneducated" for the reasons already noted but for additional, subliminal reasons as well. He is White. He is a man. He was born in the United States. He has privilege and entitlement because of those factors.
Yes, there are those who have earned college and university degrees and tout their being "educated." But, as the commenter noted, they are not. What they do is form fixed, cemented ideas that are not receptive to new information and therefore are not conducive to change or modify their stance. Instead, they delve into their toolkit to force their ideas on others through circular reasoning, bullying, badgering, shouting, name calling and shaming. Those tactics are evidence of their lack of skill and wisdom. Their loss. It's important to not feel intimidated by either side of the equation. These people, whether formally educated or not, are mere humans just as are the rest of us. They are just as prone to being fallible as are others. The thing of it is, the ones who are educated in whatever system is used are not only human and fallible, they will not have the need to belittle others in order to maintain dominance over whoever they're dealing with. Therein lies their transparency.
It's unfortunate that learning and experience from the trenches is sometimes discounted. It's even more disappointing when that hands-on awareness is dismissed as not relevant, especially for people of color or is not backed up by someone's merchandised verification of knowledge (certification exams). But it happens. I wonder if anyone has done a study about how much valuable talent is lost because of it.
Sponsored Links:
- Critical Reasoning and Philosophy: A Concise Guide to Reading, Evaluating, and Writing Philosophical Works
- Talent Genius
